Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and scope profile is covered. The description adds only "returns full details," without noting whether team_id is required for scoping, whether results are localized by locale, or any not-found behavior — modest added value over the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the return behavior front-loaded and the usage trigger following. No filler, though the second sentence could have carried parameter or scoping detail at no length cost.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and annotations cover safety. The gap is on the input side: an optional team_id and a locale with no stated effect leave real ambiguity about how to call this tool correctly in a team context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and it does not. It never explains what workout_id refers to, when the optional team_id matters, or how locale affects returned content — all three parameters are silent in both schema and description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("returns full details of a workout from the team"), which is clearly distinct from list_team_workouts. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_workout_details, leaving ambiguity about which detail-fetching tool applies to team vs. non-team workouts.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear trigger condition: use when the user selects a workout or asks for details about a specific workout. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer get_workout_details instead), so the agent must infer the boundary.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.